[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <558193C1.70001@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 08:35:29 -0700
From: Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>
To: roopa <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>,
Scott Feldman <sfeldma@...il.com>
CC: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] ipv4: include NLM_F_APPEND flag in append route notifications
On 06/17/2015 07:50 AM, roopa wrote:
> On 6/17/15, 12:50 AM, Scott Feldman wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 9:11 AM, Roopa Prabhu
>> <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> @@ -1203,6 +1204,8 @@ int fib_table_insert(struct fib_table *tb,
>>> struct fib_config *cfg)
>>>
>>> if (!(cfg->fc_nlflags & NLM_F_APPEND))
>>> fa = fa_first;
>>> + else
>>> + nlflags |= NLM_F_APPEND;
>>> }
>> The if and else parts above don't seem logically related.
> I have it at this place because here is where the decision to append
> really happens.
>> Maybe you
>> could initialize nlflags as:
>>
>> unsigned int nlflags = cfg->fc_nlflags &
>> (NLM_F_REPLACE|NLM_F_APPEND);
>>
>> And then pass rtmsg_fib(..., nlflags) to avoid the flag test/set?
> nlflags should only contain NLM_F_REPLACE and NLM_F_APPEND if a replace or
> append really took place. Hence the check and setting of nlflags is at
> the place where that
> decision is made.
>
> I had tried this patch a couple of other ways.... Do you think the below
> would be less confusing ?
>
> thanks.
>
>
>
> diff --git a/net/ipv4/fib_trie.c b/net/ipv4/fib_trie.c
> index 3c699c4..9bfa3d8 100644
> --- a/net/ipv4/fib_trie.c
> +++ b/net/ipv4/fib_trie.c
> @@ -1082,6 +1082,7 @@ int fib_table_insert(struct fib_table *tb, struct
> fib_config *cfg)
> struct trie *t = (struct trie *)tb->tb_data;
> struct fib_alias *fa, *new_fa;
> struct key_vector *l, *tp;
> + unsigned int nlflags = 0;
> struct fib_info *fi;
> u8 plen = cfg->fc_dst_len;
> u8 slen = KEYLENGTH - plen;
> @@ -1189,8 +1190,9 @@ int fib_table_insert(struct fib_table *tb, struct
> fib_config *cfg)
> fib_release_info(fi_drop);
> if (state & FA_S_ACCESSED)
> rt_cache_flush(cfg->fc_nlinfo.nl_net);
> + nlflags |= NLM_F_REPLACE;
> rtmsg_fib(RTM_NEWROUTE, htonl(key), new_fa, plen,
> - tb->tb_id, &cfg->fc_nlinfo, NLM_F_REPLACE);
> + tb->tb_id, &cfg->fc_nlinfo, nlflags);
>
> goto succeeded;
>
Why even bother modifying this part? Is this actually needed at all,
are there some other flags you plan to drop into nlflags as well that
would be passed as a part of this message?
> @@ -1201,7 +1203,9 @@ int fib_table_insert(struct fib_table *tb, struct
> fib_config *cfg)
> if (fa_match)
> goto out;
>
> - if (!(cfg->fc_nlflags & NLM_F_APPEND))
> + if (cfg->fc_nlflags & NLM_F_APPEND)
> + nlflags |= NLM_F_APPEND;
> + else
> fa = fa_first;
> }
> err = -ENOENT;
I'm not sure I see the point of using the |=. Why not just use a = and
save yourself an instruction or two since you don't really need the OR
operator in this case.
> @@ -1238,7 +1242,7 @@ int fib_table_insert(struct fib_table *tb, struct
> fib_config *cfg)
>
> rt_cache_flush(cfg->fc_nlinfo.nl_net);
> rtmsg_fib(RTM_NEWROUTE, htonl(key), new_fa, plen, new_fa->tb_id,
> - &cfg->fc_nlinfo, 0);
> + &cfg->fc_nlinfo, nlflags);
> succeeded:
> return 0;
>
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists